[fosscomm] FOSSCOMM APEX COMMITTEE

jtd jtd at mtnl.net.in
Sat Jul 18 05:11:03 PDT 2009


On Saturday 18 July 2009, OpenSpace wrote:
> Dear Raj,
>
> 2009/7/18 Raj Mathur <raju at linux-delhi.org>
>
> > On Friday 17 Jul 2009, Anivar Aravind wrote:
> > > [snip]
> > > An alliance /network  need to build from Base rules. Not from the top
> > > or on the basis on immediate action items. No one here is objecting
> > > Andrew lynn's intervention as foss supporter / JNU Professor or In
> > > Individual Capacity., That we all do in our individual capacities. We
> > > all know fosscomm not yet formalised its structure and that process
> > > need to be initiated from Ground rules/principles and membership
> > > criteria
> > >
> > > So lets start from that instead of Representation/ Apex Commiteee
> > > Discussions .
> >
> > There are discussions and meetings that are held in camera and which the
> > participants may not want disclosed to the whole world.  For instance,
> > if Prof Lynn is given some information about the progress of the Open
> > Standards issue in confidence by a committee member, on a personal
> > basis, there is no way he (Andrew) can share it with this list.  On the
> > other hand, the information may be crucial enough to warrant immediate
> > action.  In these circumstances Andrew only has 3 choices:
> >
> > 1. Do nothing and let the window lapse.
> >
> > 2. Do something on a personal basis, which may or may not be the
> > appropriate response.
> >
> > 3. Share the information with a select peer group in confidence and
> > enable the peer group to provide the necessary response.
> >
> > I'm afraid that openness is only possible up to a point when dealing
> > with external, possibly hostile entities, so I second Prof Lynn's call
> > for a Working Group to tackle confidential activities that may be
> > required for progress in the Open Standards case.  Note: "Apex
> > Committee" is a misnomer -- these people aren't in any way special or
> > better than the rest of us worker ants -- they are just more qualified
> > to tackle this particular issue and keep confidential information just
> > that: confidential.  (They will also have to work harder than the rest
> > of us, but that's their problem ;-)
> >
> > If such a Working Group is formed, I'd insist on regular (say weekly)
> > reports from them on their activities, or whatever can be revealed about
> > their activities without breaching friendly confidences and tipping off
> > inimical entities.
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > -- Raj
> > --
> > Raj Mathur                raju at kandalaya.org      http://kandalaya.org/
> >       GPG: 78D4 FC67 367F 40E2 0DD5  0FEF C968 D0EF CC68 D17F
> > PsyTrance & Chill: http://schizoid.in/   ||   It is the mind that moves
>
> What you are saying in essence is that The Free and Open Source Software
> Community be a Closed Cabal with Limited Disclosure when it comes to its
> own functioning, and sit on a moral high horse regarding
> closed proprietary systems?
>
What he is saying is that, we dont make the rules. And if you want to be a 
invited to the party (inspite of your reputation preceding you) you better 
accept the rules until you can change it.

> Have confidence in openness and transparency... it is powerful, and more
> important, it works!

It does - when you have something highily visible to beat the govt. with. Like 
money, Press PR, Large organisation, High profile members etc, else you are 
left throwing pies at certain people.



-- 
Rgds
JTD



More information about the network mailing list